Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1887-06-23

juries have such cases entirely In shsi F
hands, and viii not be and should not be
Influenced by outsiders. who il summoned
to set a. iurymen in the case, could not be
allowed "a DO 20 because they have previ-
ously and decidedly -expresscd an opinion
as to the guilt of the prisoner" An honest
and fair juror cannot bring in verdict Of
guilty until facts are Lgally presented tohis
consideration which prove il beyond rea-
sonable doubt
As 60 Senator Edelen's course, no one
will believe that il was caused by any 9TH
er than conscientious motives. He believed
that the law could Furnish the prisoner no
further defense, and So far a. he was con-
cerned he had right TO follow his convic-
tons and retire from it. But why should
his course be urged as an example To coun-
sci who honestly no doubt entertain differ
ent views or may not be satisfied that his
views are correct. Is il not their duty to
be governed by and follow their convic-
tons: They should be degraded from an
honorable profession if they did not The
remaining counsel have until the first Of
July to prepare their exceptions &c the ru-
ling Of the Court. II, after studying the
questions reserved by them, they shall sim
cerely believe they cannot be maintained,
they would be fully justified in not pre-
sentlng them for the Courts signature. But
ii they conscientiously believed that the
points made by them were correct, and
would be sustained by the Court Of APP
pcals, for one would join in condemning
them for not doing their duty as counselb by
preparing the case ff review by the high
est legal tribunal in the State. For myself
| cannot yet discover any blame in the con-
duct Of any one who has acted in the case.
At the first trial testimony was introduced
by the State for the purpose of conviction.
and was allowed by the Court 10 go 10 the
/ juTy-exceptiOns were taken 10 its admissl-
bility. The prisoner being without money
could not pay the necessary costs required
of him before the record could go 20 the
Court OF Appeals. No one volunteered 10
furnish the means The Attorney General
of the State, however, very properly ar
ranged that il should bc submitted to that
( Court He was determined that every ia
| cility should be furnished which the law
\ allowed, and according IA law and that
/ small amount of money should not stand
] in the way of legal justice. In this he rep
resented the magnanimity of the State Be
/ ing submitted, the decision of the Court be-
\ luw was reversed and a new trial awarded
I Now who is to blame for the delay in the
/ execution of the murderer thus far No
/ body. All the parties engaged, from the
States Attorney who presented the evil
dcnce, including our Circuit Court who al
lowed il to 90 Ia the jury, the Attorney Gen
cral in carrying it up and the Court ofAp-
pcals who dsailowcd il, acted NJ doubt in
the most conscientious manner. Certainly
no blame can attach Ia the counsel for the
defense who objected To- the admisslhillty
of the testimony which the highest Court
decides should have been excluded.
I new iilli - tIh'aNh. AAA' A'N4'S' - N.0e''''
convicted. and the jury who brings in tn,
verdict recommend him 10 mercy. TX
crptions arr noted 10y the counsel for dc
Tense. The Court allows them until July
T. consider and present them. Now, wher
the jury heard all the facts ami the law too
expoundcd IL them, are disposed that he
should .har yiFGrr Wbliflb mGaRsS. that th I.
their minds against intiiCtirg the extrem,
penalty, why should the counsel for the de
Tense be blamed for relieving their client, i
LEGALLY they possibly can, from that terri
hlc penalty? They were .'Svign,d by III,
Court to perf,rm that duty; they are under
oath 70 de- il H. the iiil! extent Of their abil
ity. and instead of hlam. should receive
commentator for COnSciCntiously perform.
ing the duty thus imposed upon them and
accepted by them without having ihcil
minds operated upon 10y public clamor oI
any extreme considerations.
Benz. c. HARRIS